So, movie sequels are really becoming a mess eh!

[wonderer99]

With the news that Jamie Lee Curtis will be reprising her role of Laurie from the original Halloween we continue the horrible trend of new movies completely disregarding previous entries in the series.

So, correct me if I am wrong but as it stands Halloween 3 has almost nothing to do with 1 and 2. Halloweens 4-6 completely ignore the 3rd film. Halloween H20 disregards the previous 4 movies although does acknowledge Laurie's death by claiming she faked it. Now we have a new movie that will completely ignore all but the first two movie, including its own soft reboots and essentially reset the series, again. Phew.

I have discussed a number of times on the forums my disdain for Neil Blomkamp's (thankfully abandoned) attempt to ignore Alien 3 and Resurrection. I find it very distasteful and ignorant to mess with a series events at any point in their timeline purely because a certain entry did not sit well with a director. It is, well, arrogant.

Now I know this is not a new trend exactly (Yes, Superman Returns did it and a number of others) but it does seem to be getting more common and with the amount of new, young directorial talent emerging there seems to be a real risk of franchises becoming, at the very least, horrendously messy. Just imagine if a new guy comes along who liked Alien and Alien 3 but not Aliens. He alters the timline again. Then someone else wants to keep Alien, Aliens and Resurrection but not Alien 3? How complicated and ugly can it get?

So the question is, has the word canon lost all meaning? Yes we will always have whatever entries we love and can watch them anytime we wish. Nothing will detract from that of course but the new Halloween movie seems to just be sticking two fingers up at its own franchise canon and I fear many more film series will soon become a mess of individual entries that ignore whatever they wish in the series based on the personal opinions of their individual directors.

Thoughts?

[Himmel]

Originally Posted by wonderer99

With the news that Jamie Lee Curtis will be reprising her role of Laurie from the original Halloween we continue the horrible trend of new movies completely disregarding previous entries in the series.

So, correct me if I am wrong but as it stands Halloween 3 has almost nothing to do with 1 and 2. Halloweens 4-6 completely ignore the 3rd film. Halloween H20 disregards the previous 4 movies although does acknowledge Laurie's death by claiming she faked it. Now we have a new movie that will completely ignore all but the first two movie, including its own soft reboots and essentially reset the series, again. Phew.

I have discussed a number of times on the forums my disdain for Neil Blomkamp's (thankfully abandoned) attempt to ignore Alien 3 and Resurrection. I find it very distasteful and ignorant to mess with a series events at any point in their timeline purely because a certain entry did not sit well with a director. It is, well, arrogant.

Now I know this is not a new trend exactly (Yes, Superman Returns did it and a number of others) but it does seem to be getting more common and with the amount of new, young directorial talent emerging there seems to be a real risk of franchises becoming, at the very least, horrendously messy. Just imagine if a new guy comes along who liked Alien and Alien 3 but not Aliens. He alters the timline again. Then someone else wants to keep Alien, Aliens and Resurrection but not Alien 3? How complicated and ugly can it get?

So the question is, has the word canon lost all meaning? Yes we will always have whatever entries we love and can watch them anytime we wish. Nothing will detract from that of course but the new Halloween movie seems to just be sticking two fingers up at its own franchise canon and I fear many more film series will soon become a mess of individual entries that ignore whatever they wish in the series based on the personal opinions of their individual directors.

Thoughts?

Resurrection was crap, and should never have happened. This movie will put Michael to an end once and for all.

I think we need to wait till we know more before passing judgment.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by wonderer99

With the news that Jamie Lee Curtis will be reprising her role of Laurie from the original Halloween we continue the horrible trend of new movies completely disregarding previous entries in the series.

So, correct me if I am wrong but as it stands Halloween 3 has almost nothing to do with 1 and 2. Halloweens 4-6 completely ignore the 3rd film. Halloween H20 disregards the previous 4 movies although does acknowledge Laurie's death by claiming she faked it. Now we have a new movie that will completely ignore all but the first two movie, including its own soft reboots and essentially reset the series, again. Phew.

I have discussed a number of times on the forums my disdain for Neil Blomkamp's (thankfully abandoned) attempt to ignore Alien 3 and Resurrection. I find it very distasteful and ignorant to mess with a series events at any point in their timeline purely because a certain entry did not sit well with a director. It is, well, arrogant.

Now I know this is not a new trend exactly (Yes, Superman Returns did it and a number of others) but it does seem to be getting more common and with the amount of new, young directorial talent emerging there seems to be a real risk of franchises becoming, at the very least, horrendously messy. Just imagine if a new guy comes along who liked Alien and Alien 3 but not Aliens. He alters the timline again. Then someone else wants to keep Alien, Aliens and Resurrection but not Alien 3? How complicated and ugly can it get?

So the question is, has the word canon lost all meaning? Yes we will always have whatever entries we love and can watch them anytime we wish. Nothing will detract from that of course but the new Halloween movie seems to just be sticking two fingers up at its own franchise canon and I fear many more film series will soon become a mess of individual entries that ignore whatever they wish in the series based on the personal opinions of their individual directors.

Thoughts?

I feel exactly the same way. 'Let's forget what came before and reimagine another scenario'. Ehhhh, no let's not. I paid good money to own that previous movie.

[Seymour]

Originally Posted by wonderer99

Thoughts?

Who cares? We're talking about movies here. If you're not happy about the new Halloween (or whatever), then just skip it...

[wonderer99]

Originally Posted by Himmel

Resurrection was crap, and should never have happened. This movie will put Michael to an end once and for all.

I think we need to wait till we know more before passing judgment.

Its not about how good the movie is though. It could be Oscar material, thats not the point. It has brought back two characters that have officially died in the series canon. If the new movie sucks can someone else then just do their 'last entry' movie?

Repeat and rinse. This is about respecting what came before whether you like the films or not. Imagine the outcry if a hotshot new director ignored ROTJ because he didn't think it "was as good" Disney would never allow it of course but if its good enough for one etc etc. What about T2 being retconned? Aliens?

[Himmel]

Originally Posted by Seymour

Who cares? We're talking about movies here. If you're not happy about the new Halloween (or whatever), then just skip it...

People have a tendency to jump the gun and judge before they see the whole picture. Curtis would never come back if the premise was stupid, or would hurt the franchise.

[CyberpunkCentral]

Yeah, I'm not a fan of this route either. Not because I care about continuity, but if you're going to completely disregard decades of "canon" then why shouldn't we do the same with the new film as well? When you think about it, the only thing that's truly canon is the original film. The more you retcon stuff, the more it diminishes the relevance of the newer set of films.

[wonderer99]

Originally Posted by Seymour

Who cares? We're talking about movies here. If you're not happy about the new Halloween (or whatever), then just skip it...

Apologies, I thought I was on a movie discussion board with people who cared about films and wanted to discuss them? My bad.

[Himmel]

Didn't H2O completely ignore 4-6?? and people were ok with that.

[Seymour]

Originally Posted by wonderer99

Apologies, I thought I was on a movie discussion board with people who cared about films and wanted to discuss them? My bad.

Again, why do you care so much? If you don't like the idea of the new Halloween (or whatever imaginary movie you're afraid of), then don't watch it. Ignore it. Move on with your life.

[Zillamon51]

I like the trend. The reason a lot of franchises end, is because sequels tend to trend downward in quality as time goes on. Core characters die, name talent moves on, the story gets convoluted or written into a corner, etc.

Let's stick with Halloween as an example. The whole reason fans are excited is because John Carpenter and JLC are coming back. Do you really think they would, if they had to continue on with the Thorn cult, or Busta Rhymes, or make a sequel to the Rob Zombie films? They wouldn't touch any of that crap with a ten-foot cattle prod. So either no new Halloween for anybody, or a bunch of hacks and hired guns run it into the ground again.

Reboot as much as you need to, to get it right. It's just movies, not quantum physics. We can figure it out. As much as people might b!tch about it, producing a good movie means all is forgiven. See: Spider-Man: Homecoming.

[CyberpunkCentral]

Originally Posted by Himmel

Didn't H2O completely ignore 4-6?? and people were ok with that.

But it's at a point where you're like, okay, is this new Halloween film no longer going to be canon in 10 years or so? Kinda takes away from the new movie, if anything. But hey, at least Halloween: Resurrection never happened.

[Cremildo]

I'm afraid I don't really care.

The older movies won't cease to exist. If a person disagrees with the revisionist path a franchise is taking, either don't watch it or watch it but don't consider it canon.

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by wonderer99

With the news that Jamie Lee Curtis will be reprising her role of Laurie from the original Halloween we continue the horrible trend of new movies completely disregarding previous entries in the series.

So, correct me if I am wrong but as it stands Halloween 3 has almost nothing to do with 1 and 2. Halloweens 4-6 completely ignore the 3rd film. Halloween H20 disregards the previous 4 movies although does acknowledge Laurie's death by claiming she faked it. Now we have a new movie that will completely ignore all but the first two movie, including its own soft reboots and essentially reset the series, again. Phew.

I have discussed a number of times on the forums my disdain for Neil Blomkamp's (thankfully abandoned) attempt to ignore Alien 3 and Resurrection. I find it very distasteful and ignorant to mess with a series events at any point in their timeline purely because a certain entry did not sit well with a director. It is, well, arrogant.

Now I know this is not a new trend exactly (Yes, Superman Returns did it and a number of others) but it does seem to be getting more common and with the amount of new, young directorial talent emerging there seems to be a real risk of franchises becoming, at the very least, horrendously messy. Just imagine if a new guy comes along who liked Alien and Alien 3 but not Aliens. He alters the timline again. Then someone else wants to keep Alien, Aliens and Resurrection but not Alien 3? How complicated and ugly can it get?

So the question is, has the word canon lost all meaning? Yes we will always have whatever entries we love and can watch them anytime we wish. Nothing will detract from that of course but the new Halloween movie seems to just be sticking two fingers up at its own franchise canon and I fear many more film series will soon become a mess of individual entries that ignore whatever they wish in the series based on the personal opinions of their individual directors.

Thoughts?

Retconning gets done all the time in TV, books and especially comic books, I don't see why people get into a twist over it when it's done with films. Film makers are free to take any approach they like. As long as the resulting film works on its own terms, I don't mind if they ignore some subpar sequels. It doesn't change the original. If you think it's "distasteful" then nobody will force you to watch the latest Halloween film.

[shinobipopcorn]

Superman Returns ignored 3&4, then those newer ones ignored Returns and all the others. Batman 1-4 are the same canon despite different Batmen before it starts over. X-Men has loopy canon and even says so on screen (though Deadpool is loopy himself).

So nothing surprises me these days.

[Himmel]

Here is a snippet from an article I posted:

Green, speaking to Business Insider entertainment reporter Jason Guerrasio at the 2017 Toronto International Film Festival, says Carpenter wants to remain involved in the franchise he launched by writing the score for the new movie. Green also says that Carpenter has read the movie’s script, has given notes on it and “digs it.”

Now Carpenter had a hand in given tips on what to do... And Curtis has signed on... This has win written all over it.

[CyberpunkCentral]

Originally Posted by shinobipopcorn

Superman Returns ignored 3&4, then those newer ones ignored Returns and all the others. Batman 1-4 are the same canon despite different Batmen before it starts over. X-Men has loopy canon and even says so on screen (though Deadpool is loopy himself).

So nothing surprises me these days.

I don't think superhero movies should count because it's all comic book logic.

[Britbuffguy]

Originally Posted by Himmel

Didn't H2O completely ignore 4-6?? and people were ok with that.

Can't speak for anyone else, but yeah, ignoring Jamie ever existed bugged me.

Seems like they bend over backwards whenever Curtis decides she needs to use Halloween to get her name out there again.

I think doing it once was lame, but now they are even forgetting H20 and Resurrection never happened, I'm just not gonna be able to follow.

I do wonder if Average Joe film goer will even know what's going on, cause isn't this one gonna be called Halloween 3, and it's neither a sequel to the Zombie film, now does it fit in with the original series anymore.


I can't fully say I'm against the idea of rebooting a series where it went wrong, cause I thought seeing the alternative Alien3 story where Newt and Hicks survived would have been fun for me, and I love Alien3....so...

[wonderer99]

Originally Posted by Britbuffguy

Can't speak for anyone else, but yeah, ignoring Jamie ever existed bugged me.

Seems like they bend over backwards whenever Curtis decides she needs to use Halloween to get her name out there again.

I think doing it once was lame, but now they are even forgetting H20 and Resurrection never happened, I'm just not gonna be able to follow.

I do wonder if Average Joe film goer will even know what's going on, cause isn't this one gonna be called Halloween 3, and it's neither a sequel to the Zombie film, now does it fit in with the original series anymore.


I can't fully say I'm against the idea of rebooting a series where it went wrong, cause I thought seeing the alternative Alien3 story where Newt and Hicks survived would have been fun for me, and I love Alien3....so...

This is one of the main issues. It just makes a franchise a complete mess. As I said in the original post, yes, you can ignore what you want and enjoy what you want but doing this sets a nasty precedent. Continuing with Halloween as an example everyone thinks its a great idea now because it has the potential to be a fantastic movie. But what if it sucks (because neither Curtis or Carpenter are guaranteed gold) then we just have another crappy reboot that will itself be retconned in the future. It never ends. Maybe Curtis will be back in another 10 years to try again, maybe Carpenter will. Who knows. It gets to a point where the movies have no value as they will be treated as worthless in the future depending on who wants to have a crack.

Also I believe this is a situation where it only matters to you when its a film you love. If Return of the Jedi was retconned by someone the thread would be 200 pages long.

[Batmon77]

Originally Posted by shinobipopcorn

Superman Returns ignored 3&4, then those newer ones ignored Returns and all the others. Batman 1-4 are the same canon despite different Batmen before it starts over.

Batman 1-4 are the same character w/ different actors/directors.
Batman- Nolan didnt have to regard the previous films. Its a another franchise.

Superman thru Superman Returns is one continuity.
Man of Steel is not of that continuity.

These examples are different from Halloween and its sequels.

Studios will continue to pump out these retcons knowing they have a built in audience who willing to shell out cash.
Brand loyalty trumps good ideas.